-->
@Double_R
I have quite a few theories I will share with you as to why this is after your reply.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people
Posts
Total:
312
-->
@Double_R
I think that is the position pro gun individuals have. That no law is 100% effective on crime. Therefore restricting something they like (we can be honest on how much of this debate is based on like) creates a bigger cost than benefit because what they do will be impacted, not the crime.
-->
@Greyparrot
My question is, can you take any gun violence rhetoric seriously if the rhetoric purposely avoids the elephant in the room?
It's not an elephant in the room. When we talk about basic gun safety laws/proposals such as universal background checks, mandatory waiting periods, permits, banning extended magazines, etc. - all of those types of proposals would apply to the glock as well. No one is pretending otherwise because it's basic common sense. If guns are dangerous, that means all guns.
The reason assault weapons have gained so much attention is because the case for not having them readily available is painfully obvious to anyone who cares about protecting lives from gun violence. If we can't even agree on that then there is no hope of finding common ground on the glock so any attempt at the latter would be utterly pointless.
-->
@hey-yo
I think that is the position pro gun individuals have. That no law is 100% effective on crime. Therefore restricting something they like (we can be honest on how much of this debate is based on like) creates a bigger cost than benefit because what they do will be impacted, not the crime.
That logic applies just the same to every single thing we have banned/limited in our society.
Drug laws do not prevent people of using and dying of drugs.
Speed limits do not stop people from speeding.
Purjury laws do not stop people from lying on the stand.
Yet in no other instance in life would anyone seriously argue that laws not being 100% effective is a legitimate reason to not have them. Only guns get this pass. Why?
-->
@Double_R
But plenty of high crime areas like Chicago and Detroit who lead the nation in Glock deaths have citywide bans on all sorts of specific weaponry EXCEPT the Glock. Why does the Glock get a complete pass?
While Chicago approved a ban on handgun ownership in 1982, the measure was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, the AP reported in 2018.
“Handguns are as legal in Chicago as they are in Dallas,” said John Donohue III, a law professor at Stanford University.
I guess this article explains why?
-->
@Greyparrot
But plenty of high crime areas like Chicago and Detroit who lead the nation in Glock deaths have citywide bans on all sorts of specific weaponry EXCEPT the Glock. Why does the Glock get a complete pass?
Because 2nd amendment advocates would go nuts and ultimately they'll win the legal battle, so ask them.
I guess this article explains why?
Yes it does, so what's your point?
-->
@Double_R
Yes it does, so what's your point?
No gotchas, just discussions.
Discussing which guns are banworthy and which ones aren't is useless since criminals don't follow gun laws.
-->
@Mharman
Discussing which guns are banworthy and which ones aren't is useless since criminals don't follow gun laws.
Bans might not be realistic, desirable, or legally defensible in the USA, but not for your stated reason. Correct, criminals don’t follow most laws, but they must follow the “law” of supply and demand. If the supply of certain weapons is reduced, they go up in price, even in the black market— or should I say, especially in the black market, as it certainly follows the law of supply and demand and charges a premium for especially hard to obtain weapons. The black market charges a premium just for dealing illegally, actually.
The result is that even criminals will find banned weapons more costly and difficult to obtain.
-->
@cristo71
That’s irrelevant since the price will be worth it for those that want one to commit crimes.
-->
@Mharman
@cristo71
Remember that an entire criminal gang network was created around the alcohol ban. Are you absolutely sure this is a feasible direction to go down?
The black market charges a premium just for dealing illegally, actually.
Which means crime will pay for those suppliers....
-->
@Greyparrot
No gotchas, just discussions.
Appreciate that, but it's difficult to have a discussion without a point.
You're right that it is unconstitutional to ban glocks, but the conversation is what our laws should look like. The constitution can be amended, so it's not an argument.
-->
@Mharman
The cost of doing “business” is hardly irrelevant— ask any business owner.
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you absolutely sure this is a feasible direction to go down?
My answer to that question is at the beginning of my first post here.
-->
@cristo71
Businesses are costly to start- this would be no different. If they achieve their goals (whatever they are) with them, they will see it as worth it. Especially if those goals include crimes against law-abiding citizens specifically.
-->
@Mharman
Higher prices lower demand— this is an economic fact. To restate, bans don’t completely eliminate firearms or whatever weapon is being banned from criminal possession; they reduce the supply and therefor reduce the availability. It is very similar to the principle of scarcity of resources. Again, I’m not advocating that a ban is a good idea; it just isn’t a bad idea for the reason you stated.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9131-guns-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people?page=2&post_number=42
I wrote much the same back on page 2.
Just to point out that this is also nonsense:
I wrote much the same back on page 2.
Just to point out that this is also nonsense:
Remember that an entire criminal gang network was created around the alcohol ban. Are you absolutely sure this is a feasible direction to go down?
There's no way a black market around guns would be the same as one around alcohol. There's no reasonable demand where there is no reasonable utility. That and the manufacturing of guns is obviously way more complicated than making moonshine.
How come UK isn't full of gun violence where guns are prohibited?
-->
@cristo71
So how come the gun ban is a bad idea where we seem to agree that it would hamper the bad guys too?
-->
@badger
There would be quite a time lag before it hampered criminals. Meanwhile, law abiding citizens would have their self defense capabilities curbed and feel outgunned by criminals.
It really depends on the extent of the ban. Banning by brands and types? Criminals will use other brands and types. Ban of say, all semi auto pistols? That might not pass Constitutional muster. Hard to say. While I’m not for bans, I am for restrictions, such as waiting periods, background checks, age limits on semi auto.
The issue in this country is the deep connection 30+% of the population has with firearms. Some are single issue voters in that regard. There is a fear of what’s known as “incrementalism” where regulations get more and more restrictive over time until a certain freedom is infringed or effectively eliminated. That stands in the way of compromise more than anything.
There would be quite a time lag before it hampered criminals. Meanwhile, law abiding citizens would have their self defense capabilities curbed and feel outgunned by criminals.
And do you think self defense is a good argument here where the US has 5 times the homicides of other developed nations? Or is it more of a "to shoot oneself in the foot" sort of situation?
I'm just wondering what arguments are left where you'll accept that a gun ban can work in keeping guns out of all hands.
I'll take the 30% whack job population argument, but that's a tough one for you to wear. Gotta be something more than that.
-->
@badger
And do you think self defense is a good argument here where the US has 5 times the homicides of other developed nations?
Whereas you see it as: “With so many violent crimes committed with firearms, you guys should get rid of firearms altogether” a pro 2A American will interpret this as “With so many violent crimes committed with firearms, you should give up your own firearms.” This is a particularly tough sell when police are understaffed and demoralized as they are currently.
-->
@Double_R
"Question: Was that child who was shot to death killed by a gun or killed by another child?"
The child shot to death was killed by another child by accident. It's not that hard to understand.
-->
@Lucifer
No, it's not. It was actually a very simple question to understand so let me simplify some more; what was the leading factor in the child's death?
A) The other child
B) The gun
C) Other
?
Or, if that still isn't clear enough we can try it this way: Which one of these factors is the simplest to remove from the equation which would have prevented the child's death?
-->
@cristo71
Whereas you see it as: “With so many violent crimes committed with firearms, you guys should get rid of firearms altogether” a pro 2A American will interpret this as “With so many violent crimes committed with firearms, you should give up your own firearms.”
Exactly. That's the entire problem with the gun debate; gun safety advocates are arguing for the betterment of society. 2A advocates are arguing for the betterment of themselves.
The problem however is that what is better for the self multiplied on a grand scale ultimately creates a worse situation for the self. Think of an individual who works and saves up all their money. Great for the self. Imagine everyone in society doing the same thing... The economy crashes and everyone (including the self) loses.
2A advocates always talk about bad guys getting their hands on guns as reason for them to be able to do the same. Maybe if those guns weren't so easily accessible there would be less bad guys for you to be afraid of in the first place.
This is a particularly tough sell when police are understaffed and demoralized as they are currently.
Maybe their jobs wouldn't be so difficult and dangerous of the populace they are supposed to be the protectors of weren't better armed than they are.
-->
@badger
And do you think self defense is a good argument here where the US has 5 times the homicides of other developed nations?
Other "developed nations" have different demographics which lend themselves to differences gun related outcomes. Switzerland, for example, has quite a liberal policy when it comes to gun ownership, and yet they're not blowing each other's head off 24/7 (they're somewhat in the middle worldwide for "gun deaths" List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia . Switzerland has less of a diverse demographic than America: (Switzerland) Race, Diversity, and Ethnicity in Switzerland, SC | BestNeighborhood.org (America) Race and ethnicity in the United States - Wikipedia
In Switzerland, you're essentially allowed semi-auto rifles without much of a fuss, and you're allowed full automatic ones with a "may-issue-permit". So, we have a clear example of where liberal gun laws aren't a problem Firearms regulation in Switzerland - Wikipedia
If you look at the countries which have the highest gun death rate, they tend to be of certain demographics.
-->
@Double_R
Many years ago, a lot of schools had skeet shooting programs. Students could walk the halls with a gun on their shoulder and no one would bat an eye. If a students brought a gun to school today, SWAT would be surrounding the school. Something besides availability to guns and gun technology has changed in the US. The betterment of the society is not taking away peoples rights. And in the child situation, you are correct, it was the gun, but that is because it was unintentional and neither the child nor the gun was trying to kill the other child.
-->
@Lucifer
Something besides availability to guns and gun technology has changed in the US.
Yes something has, and I have my theories. But regardless, whatever it is that has changed, is a cultural issue. There is no legislative solution to fix our culture, so pointing to that is useless.
The betterment of the society is not taking away peoples rights.
The right to swing your arms end at someone else's nose.
In Switzerland,
Yeah, Switzerland, population of 8 million, 1/4 of the guns per capita, probably 1/1000th of the guns overall. Clear analogue. Yep, can't be the guns, must be the black people.
-->
@Double_R
correction: the right to defend yourself
also, we cannot simply ignore the other factors causing the violence. if you take away the right of guns, you can take away other rights.
By the way, I am new to this website. can anyone give me a short introduction of everything?
-->
@Lucifer
correction: the right to defend yourself
A gun grants one the potential to end another person's life from a considerable distance with nothing more than a motion of their finger. That's not self defense, and that absolutely encroaches on the rights of everyone else surrounding them.
we cannot simply ignore the other factors causing the violence.
We're not. We make progress on issues by addressing them one at a time. Other factors or forms of violence is a conversation for another day.
By the way, I am new to this website. can anyone give me a short introduction of everything?
Welcome DART.